William R. and Muriel G. Jackson - Page 28

                                               - 28 -                                                 
            in Ohio Farm Bureau Fedn., Inc. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 222,                            
            236 (1996), we suggested that the rationale in Newberry v.                                
            Commissioner, 76 T.C. 441 (1981), supported the holding that                              
            income from a nonsponsorship and noncompetition agreement does                            
            not constitute "unrelated business income" under the definition                           
            of that term in section 512(a).  Those cases, however, do not                             
            mandate the conclusion that income received from a covenant not                           
            to compete is per se excluded from the reach of SECA.  I think                            
            that the law on that point still may be uncertain.  Since that                            
            point is not crucial to my disagreement with the Ninth Circuit, I                         
            shall not pursue it any further.  It is sufficient to me that, on                         
            the facts as I understand them, the payments were made pursuant                           
            to a business contract that served no purpose other than to                               
            define both the consideration for and other aspects of the                                
            business relationship between petitioner and State Farm.                                  
                  Lastly, the termination payments in this case are                                   
            fundamentally unlike the insurance proceeds in Newberry v.                                
            Commissioner, supra.  The payments in Newberry were derived from                          
            an insurance policy that was purchased by the taxpayer in order                           
            to provide him with a substitute for his trade or business income                         
            in the event of a business interruption, such as the catastrophic                         
            fire in that case.  The payments took the place of income from                            
            the trade or business and were not themselves income from that                            
            business.  In this case, the termination payments were derived                            
            from a trade or business carried on by petitioner.                                        




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  

Last modified: May 25, 2011